It's Kamala!

[Dill]

(09-01-2020, 04:37 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No problem. It's the way political discourse SHOULD happen, IMO. BTW, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was celebrating my 6th wedding anniversary with my wife over the weekend.

Happy Anniversery! That's more imortant than message board stuff.

(09-01-2020, 04:37 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I think you're definition was not really a definition, IMO. I think you were making the argument that 'race' was not a social construct but rather a biological one. That's a different argument and while it COULD have a bearing on whether or not something or someone was racist, I don't think it really matters in this discussion.
Are you talking about my definition or yours? Mine certainly does support that claim. 

Before we go any further, something's not right. Look at the definition again:

A definition of "racism" I'd say, at a minimum, ought to include a belief that "race" is a biological given, not a social/cultural construction, a belief that some "races" are inherently superior or inferior, and that this inherence ought to be reflected in political order. This basis is necessary even where people insist that "racism" can only be behavior, not thought and belief unacted, or when it can only be "systemic."

I said that RACISM is grounded on a belief that race is a "biological given," NOT a social construct. I.e., that is what racists believe--race is "real" and biological; NON-racists dispute that biological claim.

I don't see how you get from that that I was saying race was NOT a social construct but a biological one. Non-racists recognize race as a social construct; racists believe it is a natural biological category.

What made/makes racism bad is that racists also conclude that some races are inferior, and social order should reflect this.

If racists did not think--and act--on that belief, there would be nothing wrong with racism.

This is not a "different argument." If we are talking about racism, we are talking about a belief in the biological superiority of one race over another, and the consequences of that belief. If we are not talking about that, then we are not talking about racism at all. If that doesn't apply to Biden's VP pick, then it "doesn't matter for this discussion" because Biden's actions do not fit the definition--i.e., are not "racist."

Finally, "your" definition comes from a dictionary. Where do dictionaries get a definition for race? From the history and sociology of racism, i.e., where I got "my" definition. In order to do any research on racism, one has to be able to define it so that it can be recognized as not some other thing. My definition is the result of that effort.